If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   National poll reflects that the 20-week-ban bill may actually be a victory for Republicans - who have succeeded in bringing the abortion debate away from the difficult rape-and-incest exceptions in which Democrats insist on exclusively framing it   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 275
    More: Followup, Republican, Democrats, abortion rights, Late termination of pregnancy, Democratic Coalition, Marsha Blackburn, House Republicans, two-thirds vote  
•       •       •

1257 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2013 at 12:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



275 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-26 01:13:33 PM
Abortion is close to the last remaining wedge issue the Republicans have any support on, so they are going to ride this baby to its very end (no pun intended).

Let's do a quick check, shall we?

Immigration reform? Lost cause
Anti-environment? Lost cause
Anti-education? Lost cause
Demographics? Lost cause
Pro-business? Democrats mostly took this from them.
Anti-healthcare? Lost cause
Anti-minority? Lost cause
Against gay marriage? Lost cause
Anti-marijuana? Lost cause
Prison reform? Lost cause
Anti-Tax? OK, one other issue

For certain people, like my mom, abortion is her ONLY issue. You'll probably continue to see the Megachurches push this harder and harder as they try to consolidate power over their constituents.

So basically they're down to death and taxes.
 
2013-06-26 01:14:38 PM

what_now: This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?


Because they want to punish women for being having sex.  She didn't know she was pregnant?  Force her to have a baby!  That'll show her.  He literally says he doesn't have sympathy.
 
2013-06-26 01:14:55 PM
This bill had protections for cases of rape and incest, right? This article at least implied so. I see several people here bringing up late-diagnosed fetal conditions. Does anyone know if this or similar bills have experienced with built-in protections regarding those?
 
2013-06-26 01:15:05 PM

enry: //Freely available birth control would do more to lower abortion rates than banning it after 20 weeks.

YES, which makes it strange why the GOP is so anti-birth control.


Not really. The actual position (which they don't tell anyone, for obvious reasons) is that unless you are prepared to raise a baby, you shouldn't be having sex.

People who are religious and have lost the memories of their adolescence to the mists of time consider this to be an entirely reasonable attitude.
 
2013-06-26 01:15:26 PM

mcreadyblue: Of course, even the Republicans had to sneak in funding for Planned Parenthood after cutting it two years ago due to the cost of the 20k additional births at county hospitals.

This bill would have cost the state millions more in hospital costs each year.

/and 12 years of public education.


That's what all the pushing for war is about. Those now-living-in-poverty children who otherwise would have never been born will flock to the military for a paycheck or tuition assitance. Boom - ready made cannon fodder just chomping at the bit to die for their profit.
 
2013-06-26 01:16:17 PM

sheep snorter: Maybe Republicans need to read their bibles. It has a potion to be used in church in front of the priest, to cause a miscarriage.
mainly used when you believe your wife is a whore and pregnant with someone else's fetus.

/Church approved abortions are part of the republicans way of life
//So is treating your wife as a slave as you purchased her from her father.
///Rape is also in the bible as a victory
////So is incest.
//So is brutally murdering people for minor crimes/debt.


Numbers 5: 12-28, if memory serves correctly.
 
2013-06-26 01:16:24 PM

vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."


and here I thought I was going to get a picture of some smutty novel.
 
2013-06-26 01:18:02 PM
For Republicans, rape and incest are a way of life. Why should they compromise on cherished virtues?

/Ducks and runs
 
2013-06-26 01:19:18 PM

what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?


That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.
 
2013-06-26 01:21:05 PM

Philip J. Fry: what_now: This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

Because they want to punish women for being having sex.  She didn't know she was pregnant?  Force her to have a baby!  That'll show her.  He literally says he doesn't have sympathy.


That's not true I said I have trouble finding sympathy for someone that dumb.  I still feel bad for them ... just sort of the same way I feel bad for someone when they shoot themselves cleaning a loaded gun.
 
2013-06-26 01:21:12 PM

Ranger Rover: This bill had protections for cases of rape and incest, right? This article at least implied so. I see several people here bringing up late-diagnosed fetal conditions. Does anyone know if this or similar bills have experienced with built-in protections regarding those?


http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/831/billtext/html/SB00005H.ht m

Take an example of a mother with serious blood pressure issues due to the pregnancy and she is restricted to bed.  That bill would require to carry the pregnancy to term (unless I missed a paragraph?) despite the fact it means she seriously endangers not only her life, but also her livelihood.  How is a poor person supposed to afford bed rest for four months plus then take care of a newborn with no job?

Section 5 paragraph 18 comes close to being ok, but only if the woman will be paralyzed or brain damaged by her pregnancy.
 
2013-06-26 01:21:26 PM
It'll only be a victory if the GOP also succeeds in revoking a woman's right to vote. That ain't happening. See you at the polls.
 
2013-06-26 01:22:15 PM

spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.


Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.
 
2013-06-26 01:23:30 PM

what_now: spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.


a ban on elective abortions after a certain point is a-ok in my book. It is not unreasonably intrusive into a patient-doctor relationship
 
2013-06-26 01:24:21 PM

Mike Chewbacca: The issue isn't really the 20-week ban. Only a tiny percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they're almost all for medical reasons.

The issue is the very strict requirements for abortion clinics. They are so strict that all but 4 or 5 clinics in Texas would have been shut down. That's the issue.


And that's just considering the Ambulatory Surgery Center clause (since each clinic would have to meet ASC standards and only 5 or maybe 6 currently do).  No one has looked to see if the ASC would offer abortion services are located within 30 miles of Hospital or whether the ASC doctors have or could get admitting privileges.
 
2013-06-26 01:25:21 PM

spiderpaz: Philip J. Fry: what_now: This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

Because they want to punish women for being having sex.  She didn't know she was pregnant?  Force her to have a baby!  That'll show her.  He literally says he doesn't have sympathy.

That's not true I said I have trouble finding sympathy for someone that dumb.  I still feel bad for them ... just sort of the same way I feel bad for someone when they shoot themselves cleaning a loaded gun.


Gotcha, ending up pregnant is like shooting yourself with a gun.  You a fairly detached from the reality of how women end up pregnant.  Birth control fails.  Condoms fail.  Lack of periods are not a guaranteed indicator of being pregnant as some women do not get them regularly and others are on medication that suppresses them.  $10 for a pregnancy test or $50 + loss of a days pay to visit the doctor is a lot of money to people.  And combined with Texas brilliantly defunding health clinics, doubly hard for women to access.
 
2013-06-26 01:25:57 PM

skullkrusher: what_now: spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.

a ban on elective abortions after a certain point is a-ok in my book. It is not unreasonably intrusive into a patient-doctor relationship




Define "elective"
 
2013-06-26 01:26:40 PM

pivazena: This is so damn stupid. The number of women who get an abortion after 20 weeks accounts for something like 1% of all abortions, and when asked why they get them they mostly didnt know they were pregnant, found a horrible deformity, or their life changed to the point that a child was not feasible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

This is only only only only only a way to chip away at women's rights to comprehensive healthcare.


Honestly if you add "and in cases where it threatens the life of the mother" to rape and incest, then I feel like 20 weeks is a good compromise.  "Didn't know they were pregnant", isn't really a great excuse for getting a late term abortion.  If we're going to compromise on this then Democrats have to be willing to concede some things.

Is there are reason 20 weeks isn't a good compromise if that's basically the status quo of abortions anyways?  Is it that unreasonable to make that 0.7% of women who want abortions because they don't understand their own bodies give their children up for adoption?

It's called compromise, and it's only good if both sides are angry about some part of it.
 
2013-06-26 01:26:46 PM

Philip J. Fry: enry: //20 weeks is starting to push when a fetus is viable outside the womb

20 weeks can be about the time you find out that your baby will never be viable.   That's about when you find out the baby has no lungs, or kidneys, or hydrocephalus has swollen his brain so large it's a risk for the mother to deliver the baby.

Yeah, 20 weeks.  A great time to start telling women they are required to deliver a baby.  Even if she and the doctors know it will suffer and die in her arms.


I'm still in the "health of the mother/child" camp on that.  If you're at 25 weeks and find a serious enough problem that the fetus would never come to term, then that should still be allowed.  If the fetus is otherwise healthy, there should be better alternatives for the mother other than an abortion.

I realize this is a really nuanced view, but I don't have a uterus, so I should probably just shut up and hope that women are able to have better control over their health choices.
 
2013-06-26 01:26:50 PM

Heraclitus: You know, if we hook a generator up to the Republican spin machine we could solve the worlds energy problems.


Yeah, but look at their success rate lately. It's only a matter of days before one of them says something massively asinine and drags this around to bite them on the ass again.
 
2013-06-26 01:27:23 PM

skullkrusher: a ban on elective abortions after a certain point is a-ok in my book. It is not unreasonably intrusive into a patient-doctor relationship


What other medical procedures do you think its appropriate for the government to ban because they violate your morals? Boob jobs? Circumcision? Vasectomies? Blood transfusions?

You don't get to decide what is or isn't elective. You don't get to intrude into a doctor patient relationship. Not yours.
 
2013-06-26 01:27:35 PM

pivazena: skullkrusher: what_now: spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.

a ban on elective abortions after a certain point is a-ok in my book. It is not unreasonably intrusive into a patient-doctor relationship

Define "elective"


not necessary to save the mother's life/protect her from serious injury
 
2013-06-26 01:28:22 PM

enry: I realize this is a really nuanced view, but I don't have a uterus, so I should probably just shut up and hope that women are able to have better control over their health choices.


It's almost like you should let the mother choose.
 
2013-06-26 01:28:25 PM

what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?


It doesn't look like the study cited by pivazena earlier is beloved by wikipedia or the scientific community, but if it has even a smidgen of truth to it, it would suggest that you are incorrect in your assertion that abortions past four months are largely motivated by the discovery that the fetus is dead or in distress; the study, in short, would make spiderpaz's arguments no straw man at all. Do you know of stats out there that contradict it?
 
2013-06-26 01:28:34 PM

dehehn: Honestly if you add "and in cases where it threatens the life of the mother" to rape and incest, then I feel like 20 weeks is a good compromise. "Didn't know they were pregnant", isn't really a great excuse for getting a late term abortion. If we're going to compromise on this then Democrats have to be willing to concede some things.


fark you. I'm not compromising on my health so old white men can feel better.
 
2013-06-26 01:29:13 PM
Americans favor such a bill by 48 percent to 44 percent.

...

It has a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points.


That seems well within the margin of error to comfortably say Americans are rather evenly split on the matter. But, hey, let's not let a little thing like "understanding statistics" get in the way of the narrative. And, nice job putting the margin of error - critical information to properly frame the findings - as the very last sentence.

Democrats have proven adept in recent years at framing the abortion debate by focusing on those cases, successfully casting Republicans--especially Republican men--as out-of-touch extremists.

No, Republicans are very adept at casting Republicans as out-of-touch extremists. Democrats are just very adept at not letting people forget that.
 
2013-06-26 01:30:05 PM

what_now: skullkrusher: a ban on elective abortions after a certain point is a-ok in my book. It is not unreasonably intrusive into a patient-doctor relationship

What other medical procedures do you think its appropriate for the government to ban because they violate your morals? Boob jobs? Circumcision? Vasectomies? Blood transfusions?

You don't get to decide what is or isn't elective. You don't get to intrude into a doctor patient relationship. Not yours.


just this one since after a certain point it actually impacts another human being, unlike boob jobs and circumcisions.

We do get to decide, actually. And we have. In fact, pretty much every western country has such restrictions. Europe is awash with abortion restrictions which are far more stringent than the ones in most of the US, actually. Welcome to society. So sorry you find it so terribly onerous
 
2013-06-26 01:32:41 PM

what_now: That's the point why it's a gray area for me. For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable. But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point. Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen. In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.


I don't see the point of including doctors in that statement, other than the point of lending more credibility to the reasons for termination, as if the mother's opinion weren't enough by itself.  It's pointless to include the doctor as if it's going to be that difficult to find some doctor somewhere willing to do whatever the hell you want for the right price.

That being said, choosing between "let women make the medical decisions for whether they can abort up until the child is born regardless of circumstance" and "let's have some limits on it with exception for special cases" ... if the parameters are reasonable enough I can't really say have a big enough opinion on it to really way in.

This particular law though - just on the surface from what I've skimmed has enough problems with it that it isn't fair.
 
2013-06-26 01:33:37 PM

skullkrusher: Europe is awash with abortion restrictions which are far more stringent than the ones in most of the US, actually.


Europe also has comprehensive sex education, mandatory maternity and paternity leave and universal health care.

You provide that in the US and see what happens to abortion rates. Until that happens, people talking about "the sanctity of life" are farking liars who want to control women.
 
2013-06-26 01:34:06 PM

Ranger Rover: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

It doesn't look like the study cited by pivazena earlier is beloved by wikipedia or the scientific community, but if it has even a smidgen of truth to it, it would suggest that you are incorrect in your assertion that abortions past four months are largely motivated by the discovery that the fetus is dead or in distress; the study, in short, would make spiderpaz's arguments no straw man at all. Do you know of stats out there that contradict it?




It's not a scientific study simply because of the way it was conducted, e.g. It was at a clinic so the sample is biased, but the sample size is quite large so the percentages are reasonable. I couldn't find anything for the very few women who get abortions past 20 weeks. I assume that things will skew away from "didnt know I was pregnant, couldn't get access" and towards "health of the fetus / mother". There are a few reasons for this. One is cost -- later term abortions are more expensive and traumatic, so at that point the procedure itself may be a deterrent for women who are on the fence. Two is biology. Of the 16-20 week group, Many women probably become aware of their pregnancy around, lets say 16 weeks and got their abortion around 19 weeks. Like I said, the internets are failing me for the 20-week groups, probably because the sample size is very small. I'm pretty interested in this topic though so ill keep searching
 
2013-06-26 01:34:25 PM

spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.


That's kind of how I feel about it too.

My biggest issue is I know two women who worked in the NICU, which is the neonatal intensive care unit. They regularly took care of babies that were around 22-34 weeks, and while the 24-week point is probably I dunno 50/50 for the baby surviving, to me you're at the point where it's really a baby not a fetus, and many grow up to be fine kids. Many of these are cesarians. So instead of getting an abortion after 24-weeks, if the person wants an abortion at that point and you really think it needs to be state decided, you should have the state (if it wants to do this) pay for the cesarian and also have programs for the extra kids this will generate. I don't know the abortion statistics for between 20 and 24 weeks but it probably is most of the 1% remaining.

Is the mother 'punished' for having sex? I suppose a bit, but if the state has programs and the cesarian can be performed at the same cost of an abortion (subsidized by gov't of course) then I see no reason to punish the baby either at that point, as it's pretty viable. You might end up pushing many pregnancies out to close to full term under those scenarios, if the mother is worried for example about higher risk with cesarians. Would you still have back-alley abortions? I suppose. Or they go to a state where those laws don't exist.

I personally think you need to have some sort of practice to allow mothers to make decisions in exceptional scenarios where the mother is at much higher risk or the baby has serious birth defects. The problem with legislating this is that it is ripe for problems, medical professionals lying to pregnant women or to the state, depending on their views.

Basically, I'm seriously conflicted on this.
 
2013-06-26 01:34:30 PM

vernonFL: Is it me, or has Yahoo become a right wing mouthpiece website in the last year? This is just more evidence of that.


Reporting on facts?! Curse you, right wing mouthpieces!
 
2013-06-26 01:34:47 PM

what_now: skullkrusher: Europe is awash with abortion restrictions which are far more stringent than the ones in most of the US, actually.

Europe also has comprehensive sex education, mandatory maternity and paternity leave and universal health care.

You provide that in the US and see what happens to abortion rates. Until that happens, people talking about "the sanctity of life" are farking liars who want to control women.


nice subject change.
Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?
 
2013-06-26 01:35:59 PM
Btw here's a study of gestational viability (it's dated):
http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm
 
2013-06-26 01:36:40 PM

what_now: dehehn: Honestly if you add "and in cases where it threatens the life of the mother" to rape and incest, then I feel like 20 weeks is a good compromise. "Didn't know they were pregnant", isn't really a great excuse for getting a late term abortion. If we're going to compromise on this then Democrats have to be willing to concede some things.

fark you. I'm not compromising on my health so old white men can feel better.


lolwut?  I hate to break it to you but plenty of women and non-white men disagree with you.  You can't just blame white men any time you're trying to make an argument unsuccessfully.  That's ridiculous.
 
2013-06-26 01:37:03 PM

spiderpaz: I don't see the point of including doctors in that statement, other than the point of lending more credibility to the reasons for termination, as if the mother's opinion weren't enough by itself.


because women- who aren't doctors- can't judge the health risks by themselves, obviously.

spiderpaz: That being said, choosing between "let women make the medical decisions for whether they can abort up until the child is born regardless of circumstance" and "let's have some limits on it with exception for special cases" .


Because certain states will make those "special cases" harder and harder to qualify. Also, what are the statistics on the level of women who have an abortion of a viable fetus for "elective" reasons after 25 weeks? What percentage are we talking about? Because if its higher than the number of babies who are shaken to death every year, I'll be shocked.
 
2013-06-26 01:37:49 PM

Ambivalence: vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."

OMG I wish I had just taken your word for it. I am not easily disgusted but...OMG I feel like I need a pint of bourbon to forget that.


I'll never get tired of posting these:
fashionablygeek.com
 
2013-06-26 01:38:56 PM

Ambivalence: vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."

OMG I wish I had just taken your word for it. I am not easily disgusted but...OMG I feel like I need a pint of bourbon to forget that.


Even the Wikipedia article on it is cringe-worthy.
 
2013-06-26 01:39:57 PM

Philip J. Fry: $10 for a pregnancy test or $50 + loss of a days pay to visit the doctor is a lot of money to people. And combined with Texas brilliantly defunding health clinics, doubly hard for women to access.


Two days pay - women are required to have two visits.  Because apparently Republicans think women are so stupid that they women are so stupid that they don't consider what they're asking for the first time they walk into a clinic and request an abortion.  They have to ensure that some harlot who wants to murder her child sleeps on it at least one night and hopefully gets the correct decision in her pretty, little, empty head.

And then add to to that that it would bring the number of abortion providers in Texas down to 4 or 5 - so most women in the state would also have to drive more than a few hours to even get to the clinic.
 
2013-06-26 01:40:48 PM

Ranger Rover: It doesn't look like the study cited by pivazena earlier is beloved by wikipedia or the scientific community, but if it has even a smidgen of truth to it, it would suggest that you are incorrect in your assertion that abortions past four months are largely motivated by the discovery that the fetus is dead or in distress; the study, in short, would make spiderpaz's arguments no straw man at all. Do you know of stats out there that contradict it?


That's for 16-20 weeks. This whole thing is about after 20 weeks.
 
2013-06-26 01:40:56 PM

what_now: Or, we can allow women and their doctors to make medical decisions and take the law right out of it.


WHAAAAAAT!
 
2013-06-26 01:41:13 PM

what_now: Because certain states will make those "special cases" harder and harder to qualify. Also, what are the statistics on the level of women who have an abortion of a viable fetus for "elective" reasons after 25 weeks? What percentage are we talking about? Because if its higher than the number of babies who are shaken to death every year, I'll be shocked.


then why the fark are you losing your shiat about putting a restriction on elective abortions after a certain point?
Also, why did you put "elective" in scare quotes?
 
2013-06-26 01:41:23 PM

skullkrusher: sheep snorter: Maybe Republicans need to read their bibles. It has a potion to be used in church in front of the priest, to cause a miscarriage.

nah, it doesn't.


Numbers 5:18-19

5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
 
2013-06-26 01:42:44 PM

mcsmiley: skullkrusher: sheep snorter: Maybe Republicans need to read their bibles. It has a potion to be used in church in front of the priest, to cause a miscarriage.

nah, it doesn't.

Numbers 5:18-19

5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:


yeah that doesn't say anything about abortion. Nor does it even mention that the woman is pregnant.
 
2013-06-26 01:43:39 PM
yeah, Yahoo news is basically fox news at this point.
 
2013-06-26 01:44:22 PM

bdub77: spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

That's kind of how I feel about it too.

My biggest issue is I know two women who worked in the NICU, which is the neonatal intensive care unit. They regularly took care of babies that were around 22-34 weeks, and while the 24-week point is probably I dunno 50/50 for the baby surviving, to me you're at the point where it's really a baby not a fetus, and many grow up to be fine kids. Many of these are cesarians. So instead of getting an abortion after 24-weeks, if the person wants an abortion at that point and you really think it needs to be state decided, you should have the state (if it wants to do this) pay for the cesarian and also have programs for the extra kids this will generate. I don't know the abortion statistics for between 20 and 24 weeks but it probably is ...


Do you have any idea who difficult a Cesarian is? it's not anywhere near the same level of surgery as an abortion. Who pays for the 8 weeks that the woman is totally out of work?  Once you have one C-section, you're almost always going to have to deliver every single future child by C-section, so who pays for any subsequent cesarean sections the woman has?
 
2013-06-26 01:44:52 PM

Karac: Philip J. Fry: $10 for a pregnancy test or $50 + loss of a days pay to visit the doctor is a lot of money to people. And combined with Texas brilliantly defunding health clinics, doubly hard for women to access.

Two days pay - women are required to have two visits.  Because apparently Republicans think women are so stupid that they women are so stupid that they don't consider what they're asking for the first time they walk into a clinic and request an abortion.  They have to ensure that some harlot who wants to murder her child sleeps on it at least one night and hopefully gets the correct decision in her pretty, little, empty head.

And then add to to that that it would bring the number of abortion providers in Texas down to 4 or 5 - so most women in the state would also have to drive more than a few hours to even get to the clinic.


This was the real problem, the 20 week thing really is great for the GOP because it wedges the debate. You're never going to get full acceptance of this issue for the crazies that think a blastocyte is a baby, but now you put a certain week close to viability to it, now you're detaching the issue from being about how the other compliance requirements in the Texas abortion bill made it basically impossible to operate an abortion clinic in Texas.
 
2013-06-26 01:45:30 PM

what_now: bdub77: spiderpaz: what_now: spiderpaz: .

Realistically, a reasonably responsible, sexually active person is going to know they're pregnant in the first 8 weeks.  If you don't know, it's because you're being negligent and lazy.  If you can't make up your mind which way to go in 4 months, I have trouble finding sympathy for you.

Again, the issue here isn't that women are saying, "Hey, I've had 5 months to figure this out, and now I don't want the baby", it's that the women are discovering that they are carrying a dead or dying fetus.

This has been pointed out again and again. Why do people still use this straw man?

That's the point why it's a gray area for me.  For most cases, the 20 week ban seems reasonable.  But there are all these exceptions that are also reasonable for allowing it past that point.  Making an argument that it's always the "usual" way, or one of the exceptional scenarios are both strawmen.  In order for it to be a good enough law that I'd be okay with it, it would probably have to be a little more lenient by a few weeks, and address every one of those exceptions to allow expecting parents to have options in case something awful happened to the mother or fetus - more than just mentally.

That's kind of how I feel about it too.

My biggest issue is I know two women who worked in the NICU, which is the neonatal intensive care unit. They regularly took care of babies that were around 22-34 weeks, and while the 24-week point is probably I dunno 50/50 for the baby surviving, to me you're at the point where it's really a baby not a fetus, and many grow up to be fine kids. Many of these are cesarians. So instead of getting an abortion after 24-weeks, if the person wants an abortion at that point and you really think it needs to be state decided, you should have the state (if it wants to do this) pay for the cesarian and also have programs for the extra kids this will generate. I don't know the abortion statistics for between 20 and 24 weeks but it pro ...


she probably should have had an abortion before it was too late in that case. Simple solutions.
 
2013-06-26 01:46:12 PM

skullkrusher: nice subject change.


You brought up Europe.

skullkrusher: Do you now agree that society can and should restrict abortions after a certain point or we still going with the balls out "feminist" stupidity?


No. I will never, ever agree that "society" has a right to decide on my health care decisions,EVER, regardless of how stupid you think feminism is.
 
2013-06-26 01:46:14 PM

Karac: vernonFL: IF you are against abortion, go do a Google Image search for "harlequin baby"

Then tell me you're against all abortion.

/NEVER do a GIS for "harlequin baby."

Is that like doing a GIS for anencephaly?

/NEVER do a GIS for 'anencephaly'.
The 'baby' qualifier is unnecessary since non-baby anencephaly is basically impossible.


Harlequin babies are bad, but they don't measure up to anencephalic babies. I'm a guy who regularly looks up weird, farked up shiat on the web, but anencephalic babies are still the only things that have haunted me to this day. I can't imagine how a would-be mother would feel if one of those came out. I can't even post a hyperlink to trick people into seeing one. Ugh...

Not a joke, folks.
 
Displayed 50 of 275 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report